http://www.roa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resolution_0805
Resolution 08-05 Non-ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty
WHEREAS, there are valuable provisions in the Law of the Sea Treaty, there are also many provisions that cause concern; it is not enough to highlight the benefits of the treaty without weighing the commitments that would be the price for full American participation in this system;
WHEREAS, the Law of the Sea Treaty is a broad agreement including articles that affect the economy and the environment with the treaty covering seabed mining, navigation, fishing, ocean pollution, marine research, economic zones and in turn national security; and
WHEREAS, a fundamental premise of the treaty is that all un-owned resources on the ocean's floor belong to the people of the world, and the treaty creates levels of paid bureaucracy and an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to control these resources; and
WHEREAS, the ISA will regulate deep seabed mining and redistribute income from the industrialized West to developing countries through arbitrary, excessive application fees, annual fees and royalties; costs of access to raw materials are likely to inhibit development, depress productivity, increase costs, and discourage innovation; and
WHEREAS, many activists view the treaty as a far reaching environmental accord; setting a global standard and providing enforcement mechanisms so that all countries are legally bound to protect the marine environment, protect fish stocks and prevent pollution; and
WHEREAS, ratification of the treaty may subject US Naval forces, and will subject U.S. martime and coastal industry to international tribunal or arbitration during disputes predicated on the treaty as geo-politics differs from law; and
WHEREAS, the treaty does not introduce any new protections for safe navigation on the high seas, but can introduce new risks that could impact the sovereignty over and the economy supported by the sea; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States provides in Article VI that “All treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land” ratification may lead to international jurisdiction over U.S. interests;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, chartered by Congress, urges the United States Senate, to deny ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Source: ROA Department of Texas Dec. 2007 Adopteded by the ROA National Council Feb. 13, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
McCain Recognizes The Dangers Posed By The UNCLOS and Calls For Its Renegotiation: Rabid Republicans Unappreciative
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/NATION/486460353/1001
McCain courts top conservatives
Washington Times
March 8, 2008
By Ralph Z. Hallow - NEW ORLEANS — Sen. John McCain yesterday got mixed reviews from some of the conservative movement's top donors and leaders after he addressed — and then took questions from — members of the secretive Council for National Policy.
"We didn't lose the 2006 [congressional] elections because of Iraq, but because of runaway spending," the putative Republican presidential nominee told the annual winter meeting of the CNP, some of whose members are skeptical at best of his claims to represent their views and goals in his bid for the presidency.
He drew cheers and applause when he said he would veto a spending bill that had earmarks and vowed to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to "make famous" the names of lawmakers who author such pork-barrel spending measures.
Speaking without notes and without hesitation, he strode energetically back and forth across the stage at the Ritz Carlton in the city's French Quarter, making his points and calling on people who had raised their hands, according to audience members reached afterward.
Generally, Mr. McCain, a strong supporter of the Iraq war, has no problems with the "war hawks" in the conservative movement and is considered at least acceptable by fiscal and anti-tax conservatives. He addressed these issues in his speech but didn't get around to social and religious subjects until they were raised by audience members in the question and answer session.
"He did a great job of addressing fiscal conservative issues and defense conservative issues," said Rep. Doug Lamborn, Colorado Republican. "What he needs to do is start talking about social issues."
Asked what would happen if Mr. McCain failed to do that, Mr. Lamborn said only that "he will become more comfortable doing it the more often he addresses social conservative groups."
A CNP member expressed her approval privately because she did not want to involve the nonprofit association she represents.
"I appreciated his candor and consistency," she said. "He reminded us of things he truly is conservative about — prolife and taxes — and even went so far as to raise why he was for issues like global warming that conservatives don't necessarily agree on. Does it mean he persuaded me? No. Is my mind still open? Yes."
A more critical answer came from the president of a Washington-based social-conservative interest group on the condition of anonymity: "If McCain can't address the social issues at meeting like this, how can he do it out there" on the campaign trail?
Other social and religious conservatives in the CNP called his appearance a flop.
Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America said she asked him about the nearly 40 percent of women in America who bear children out of wedlock and how he would address that problem.
"His response was to say his profile record [in Congress] answered that," Mrs. Crouse said. "Well, I'm proud of his profile record, but this is not a profile issue but [one] of promoting marriage and the idea that children belong within marriage. So I was not happy with his response."
Neither was longtime CNP member Richard A. Viguerie.
"I don't think he came close to saying something to excite conservatives sitting on the sidelines waiting to hear something that would get them on his team," he said. "Everything he said was rehash of what he has said before."
Mr. Viguerie made another point that several other CNP members made confidentially: "He didn't assure us he would bring conservatives into his White House or administration."
Mr. McCain, a onetime prisoner of war in Hanoi, was asked about his personal faith. He responded, Mr. Viguerie said, by telling us about the North Vietnamese guard who signaled his sympathy for McCain by drawing a cross in the dirt with his toes, but McCain didn't tell us anything about his own faith."
The saddest part, Mr. Viguerie said, was that neither Mr. McCain nor his campaign advisers "realized he fumbled the ball or why."
When Mrs. Crouse was asked whether she and her organization would work hard to help elect Mr. McCain in November, she said: "I think most conservatives will support him because he is more conservative than the two choices — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — for the Democratic Party."
But she expressed a proviso that some other CNP members also shared.
"On the other hand," she said, "he will not find an electorate that is inspired, that will plant signs in their yards, that will mobilize their neighbors and do everything they can to get him elected. They will go to the polls and that is about it."
Unless, that is, "he chooses a strong social-conservative vice presidential candidate," she added.
On the proposed Law of the Seas Treaty that President Bush supports and that conservatives generally oppose, Mr. McCain split the difference, saying the treaty as proposed surrenders "way too much" of America's sovereignty, but it needs to be renegotiated because international law needs "coherence" in this area.
Reporters covering the McCain campaign were seated in a nearby room and could listen to his speech and the questions and answers afterward, but they were not permitted to see or mingle with the audience — made up of CNP members only.
Some CNP attendees said they found Mr. McCain more humorous and self-deprecating — and more vigorous and youthful-looking — than they expected and that he earned repeated applause and laughter throughout his appearance.
"John McCain was pleased to be invited to the CNP and felt he received a warm reception and that people were open-minded," said Charlie Black, a senior McCain campaign adviser.
Most CNP members queried after the speech said Mr. McCain would get the conservative vote if for no other reason than the alternatives — Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton — were so unacceptable, especially on Iraq and the war against "Islamic Jihad
McCain courts top conservatives
Washington Times
March 8, 2008
By Ralph Z. Hallow - NEW ORLEANS — Sen. John McCain yesterday got mixed reviews from some of the conservative movement's top donors and leaders after he addressed — and then took questions from — members of the secretive Council for National Policy.
"We didn't lose the 2006 [congressional] elections because of Iraq, but because of runaway spending," the putative Republican presidential nominee told the annual winter meeting of the CNP, some of whose members are skeptical at best of his claims to represent their views and goals in his bid for the presidency.
He drew cheers and applause when he said he would veto a spending bill that had earmarks and vowed to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to "make famous" the names of lawmakers who author such pork-barrel spending measures.
Speaking without notes and without hesitation, he strode energetically back and forth across the stage at the Ritz Carlton in the city's French Quarter, making his points and calling on people who had raised their hands, according to audience members reached afterward.
Generally, Mr. McCain, a strong supporter of the Iraq war, has no problems with the "war hawks" in the conservative movement and is considered at least acceptable by fiscal and anti-tax conservatives. He addressed these issues in his speech but didn't get around to social and religious subjects until they were raised by audience members in the question and answer session.
"He did a great job of addressing fiscal conservative issues and defense conservative issues," said Rep. Doug Lamborn, Colorado Republican. "What he needs to do is start talking about social issues."
Asked what would happen if Mr. McCain failed to do that, Mr. Lamborn said only that "he will become more comfortable doing it the more often he addresses social conservative groups."
A CNP member expressed her approval privately because she did not want to involve the nonprofit association she represents.
"I appreciated his candor and consistency," she said. "He reminded us of things he truly is conservative about — prolife and taxes — and even went so far as to raise why he was for issues like global warming that conservatives don't necessarily agree on. Does it mean he persuaded me? No. Is my mind still open? Yes."
A more critical answer came from the president of a Washington-based social-conservative interest group on the condition of anonymity: "If McCain can't address the social issues at meeting like this, how can he do it out there" on the campaign trail?
Other social and religious conservatives in the CNP called his appearance a flop.
Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America said she asked him about the nearly 40 percent of women in America who bear children out of wedlock and how he would address that problem.
"His response was to say his profile record [in Congress] answered that," Mrs. Crouse said. "Well, I'm proud of his profile record, but this is not a profile issue but [one] of promoting marriage and the idea that children belong within marriage. So I was not happy with his response."
Neither was longtime CNP member Richard A. Viguerie.
"I don't think he came close to saying something to excite conservatives sitting on the sidelines waiting to hear something that would get them on his team," he said. "Everything he said was rehash of what he has said before."
Mr. Viguerie made another point that several other CNP members made confidentially: "He didn't assure us he would bring conservatives into his White House or administration."
Mr. McCain, a onetime prisoner of war in Hanoi, was asked about his personal faith. He responded, Mr. Viguerie said, by telling us about the North Vietnamese guard who signaled his sympathy for McCain by drawing a cross in the dirt with his toes, but McCain didn't tell us anything about his own faith."
The saddest part, Mr. Viguerie said, was that neither Mr. McCain nor his campaign advisers "realized he fumbled the ball or why."
When Mrs. Crouse was asked whether she and her organization would work hard to help elect Mr. McCain in November, she said: "I think most conservatives will support him because he is more conservative than the two choices — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — for the Democratic Party."
But she expressed a proviso that some other CNP members also shared.
"On the other hand," she said, "he will not find an electorate that is inspired, that will plant signs in their yards, that will mobilize their neighbors and do everything they can to get him elected. They will go to the polls and that is about it."
Unless, that is, "he chooses a strong social-conservative vice presidential candidate," she added.
On the proposed Law of the Seas Treaty that President Bush supports and that conservatives generally oppose, Mr. McCain split the difference, saying the treaty as proposed surrenders "way too much" of America's sovereignty, but it needs to be renegotiated because international law needs "coherence" in this area.
Reporters covering the McCain campaign were seated in a nearby room and could listen to his speech and the questions and answers afterward, but they were not permitted to see or mingle with the audience — made up of CNP members only.
Some CNP attendees said they found Mr. McCain more humorous and self-deprecating — and more vigorous and youthful-looking — than they expected and that he earned repeated applause and laughter throughout his appearance.
"John McCain was pleased to be invited to the CNP and felt he received a warm reception and that people were open-minded," said Charlie Black, a senior McCain campaign adviser.
Most CNP members queried after the speech said Mr. McCain would get the conservative vote if for no other reason than the alternatives — Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton — were so unacceptable, especially on Iraq and the war against "Islamic Jihad
The US Military's 'Soft Green Power' Doctrine Is European-Centric To the Core
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1203652526272450.xml&coll=7
Military's strategists promote 'soft power'
Portland visit - Navy, Marines and Coast Guard to stress war prevention, admirals say
Friday, February 22, 2008
By RICHARD READ
The Oregonian
U.S. military leaders in Portland on Thursday said a new strategy stressing international cooperation was not intended as a departure from Bush administration policies that have emphasized a troop surge.
Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard officers said they would emphasize war prevention, humanitarian assistance and international cooperation.
"Although our forces can surge when necessary to respond to crises, trust and cooperation cannot be surged," says a summary of their new policy, entitled "A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower."
Despite the new directions and the reference to a surge -- a term associated most recently with President Bush for Iraq tactics -- the strategy is not a jab at the administration, Navy Vice Adm. John Morgan Jr. said during an interview.
[THIS IS NOT CERTAIN. HOWEVER, WHAT IS CERTAIN, IS THAT THE 'NEW' POLICY IS ACTUALLY AN 'OLD' POLICY RECYCLED FROM THE CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATIONS. THAT POLICY, WHICH IS FORMERLY KNOWN AS 'MILITARY OPERATIONS OTHER THAN WAR', FOCUSED ON FOSTERING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW COOPERATION. DURING THE CLINTON ERA, U.S. MILITARY RESOURCES, INCLUDING THOSE OF THE U.S. NAVY, HAD BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY RE-ORIENTATED TOWARDS ENSURING MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AS PART OF AN INTEGRATED AND 'REVISED' U.S. NATIONAL MILIATARY/POLITICAL STRATEGY. ARGUABLY, TO THE EXTENT THIS MODE OF THINKING CONTINUES TO BE REFLECTED IN TODAY'S RECYCLED THINKING, IT ARGUABLY IMPAIRS THE SOUND PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT OF THE U.S. NAVY'S OFFICER CORPS (WHICH CURRENTLY SUPPORTS UNCLOS RATIFICATION), AND WILL CONTINUE TO INTERFERE WITH THE U.S. MARITIME SERVICES' PRIMARY ROLE OF PROJECTING AMERICAN POWER ABROAD IN ORDER TO PREVENT AND/OR TO RESOLVE INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS AND TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN HOMELAND. SEE: Myth & Realities # 2 Concerning UN Law of the Sea Treaty: U.S. Naval Freedom of Navigation and Avoidance of LOST Tribunal Jurisdiction, Despite Europe’s Aggressive Use of the Precautionary Principle? at fn#s 30-32, AT: http://itssdjournalunclos-lost.blogspot.com/2008/01/myth-realities-2-concerning-un-law-of.html .]
"I'm confident that we're in sync with this administration," said Morgan, citing approaches advocated by State Department officials. "We follow their lead."
[THE FACT THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT ADVOCATES THIS POLICY IS REASON ALONE FOR CONCERN].
Military officials picked Portland as the first West Coast stop in a series of national "conversations." They invited community leaders to respond to the new strategy, which goes beyond traditional sea combat, in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and subsequent wars.
[THIS IS NOT LIKELY TRUE. THE REASON MILITARY OFFICIALS HAVE PICKED PORTLAND IS BECAUSE OF ITS ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP ROLE. PORTLAND OREGON HAS THE DUBIOUS DISTINCTION OF BEING ONLY ONE OF THREE MAJOR U.S. CITIES, ALL LOCATED ALONG THE WEST COAST, THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE EUROPE UNION'S HAZARD, NOT RISK-BASED PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AS MUNICIPAL LAW. THE OTHERS, NOT SURPRISINGLY, ARE SEATTLE, WA and SAN FRANCISCO, CA - THE HOME DISTRICT OF THE SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES].
About 200 members of the World Affairs Council of Oregon and other organizations attended the one-day event at a downtown hotel. Invitations were sent to more than 2,000 community leaders, academics and people interested in maritime issues, said Coast Guard Rear Adm. David Pekoske.
The strategy emphasizes the use of "soft power" in an approach that could appeal more to doves than hawks.
But defense analysts in Washington, D.C., agreed it would be a mistake to interpret the strategy, crafted before the current presidential campaign, as an attempt by the military to prepare for a potential Democratic administration.
Defense Department officials have recently elevated missions such as peacekeeping to a "purported par" with war-fighting, said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank.
"When they start building warships that hold food packets as conveniently as they hold missiles, I'll find the claim more compelling," O'Hanlon said, "at which point I'll also probably object to it, since militaries are first and foremost about combat."
What's especially significant about the strategy is that the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard are collaborating, instead of duplicating or even competing, said Stephen Pietropaoli, executive director of the Navy League of the United States, a nonprofit supporting the sea services.
Morgan, 57, participated in the first strikes on Afghanistan after 9/11 as battle-group commander aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, in charge of about 10,000 personnel. He said war prevention and international cooperation were the most significant new points in the strategy.
A University of Virginia economics graduate, Morgan said U.S. forces at sea secure the flow of commerce. "We can never take that for granted," said Morgan, noting Portland's heavy reliance on international trade.
Morgan received applause when he endorsed U.S. ratification of The Law of the Sea Treaty, which would govern ocean activities.
That stance appealed to Joella Werlin, a Portland personal historian and World Affairs Council member who attended Thursday's event.
"What an extraordinary experience in a democracy," Werlin said, "that the military is actually asking for public input." Richard Read: 503-294-5135; richread@aol.com. %%endby%%
©2008 The Oregonian
Military's strategists promote 'soft power'
Portland visit - Navy, Marines and Coast Guard to stress war prevention, admirals say
Friday, February 22, 2008
By RICHARD READ
The Oregonian
U.S. military leaders in Portland on Thursday said a new strategy stressing international cooperation was not intended as a departure from Bush administration policies that have emphasized a troop surge.
Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard officers said they would emphasize war prevention, humanitarian assistance and international cooperation.
"Although our forces can surge when necessary to respond to crises, trust and cooperation cannot be surged," says a summary of their new policy, entitled "A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower."
Despite the new directions and the reference to a surge -- a term associated most recently with President Bush for Iraq tactics -- the strategy is not a jab at the administration, Navy Vice Adm. John Morgan Jr. said during an interview.
[THIS IS NOT CERTAIN. HOWEVER, WHAT IS CERTAIN, IS THAT THE 'NEW' POLICY IS ACTUALLY AN 'OLD' POLICY RECYCLED FROM THE CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATIONS. THAT POLICY, WHICH IS FORMERLY KNOWN AS 'MILITARY OPERATIONS OTHER THAN WAR', FOCUSED ON FOSTERING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW COOPERATION. DURING THE CLINTON ERA, U.S. MILITARY RESOURCES, INCLUDING THOSE OF THE U.S. NAVY, HAD BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY RE-ORIENTATED TOWARDS ENSURING MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AS PART OF AN INTEGRATED AND 'REVISED' U.S. NATIONAL MILIATARY/POLITICAL STRATEGY. ARGUABLY, TO THE EXTENT THIS MODE OF THINKING CONTINUES TO BE REFLECTED IN TODAY'S RECYCLED THINKING, IT ARGUABLY IMPAIRS THE SOUND PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT OF THE U.S. NAVY'S OFFICER CORPS (WHICH CURRENTLY SUPPORTS UNCLOS RATIFICATION), AND WILL CONTINUE TO INTERFERE WITH THE U.S. MARITIME SERVICES' PRIMARY ROLE OF PROJECTING AMERICAN POWER ABROAD IN ORDER TO PREVENT AND/OR TO RESOLVE INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS AND TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN HOMELAND. SEE: Myth & Realities # 2 Concerning UN Law of the Sea Treaty: U.S. Naval Freedom of Navigation and Avoidance of LOST Tribunal Jurisdiction, Despite Europe’s Aggressive Use of the Precautionary Principle? at fn#s 30-32, AT: http://itssdjournalunclos-lost.blogspot.com/2008/01/myth-realities-2-concerning-un-law-of.html .]
"I'm confident that we're in sync with this administration," said Morgan, citing approaches advocated by State Department officials. "We follow their lead."
[THE FACT THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT ADVOCATES THIS POLICY IS REASON ALONE FOR CONCERN].
Military officials picked Portland as the first West Coast stop in a series of national "conversations." They invited community leaders to respond to the new strategy, which goes beyond traditional sea combat, in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and subsequent wars.
[THIS IS NOT LIKELY TRUE. THE REASON MILITARY OFFICIALS HAVE PICKED PORTLAND IS BECAUSE OF ITS ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP ROLE. PORTLAND OREGON HAS THE DUBIOUS DISTINCTION OF BEING ONLY ONE OF THREE MAJOR U.S. CITIES, ALL LOCATED ALONG THE WEST COAST, THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE EUROPE UNION'S HAZARD, NOT RISK-BASED PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AS MUNICIPAL LAW. THE OTHERS, NOT SURPRISINGLY, ARE SEATTLE, WA and SAN FRANCISCO, CA - THE HOME DISTRICT OF THE SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES].
About 200 members of the World Affairs Council of Oregon and other organizations attended the one-day event at a downtown hotel. Invitations were sent to more than 2,000 community leaders, academics and people interested in maritime issues, said Coast Guard Rear Adm. David Pekoske.
The strategy emphasizes the use of "soft power" in an approach that could appeal more to doves than hawks.
But defense analysts in Washington, D.C., agreed it would be a mistake to interpret the strategy, crafted before the current presidential campaign, as an attempt by the military to prepare for a potential Democratic administration.
Defense Department officials have recently elevated missions such as peacekeeping to a "purported par" with war-fighting, said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank.
"When they start building warships that hold food packets as conveniently as they hold missiles, I'll find the claim more compelling," O'Hanlon said, "at which point I'll also probably object to it, since militaries are first and foremost about combat."
What's especially significant about the strategy is that the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard are collaborating, instead of duplicating or even competing, said Stephen Pietropaoli, executive director of the Navy League of the United States, a nonprofit supporting the sea services.
Morgan, 57, participated in the first strikes on Afghanistan after 9/11 as battle-group commander aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, in charge of about 10,000 personnel. He said war prevention and international cooperation were the most significant new points in the strategy.
A University of Virginia economics graduate, Morgan said U.S. forces at sea secure the flow of commerce. "We can never take that for granted," said Morgan, noting Portland's heavy reliance on international trade.
Morgan received applause when he endorsed U.S. ratification of The Law of the Sea Treaty, which would govern ocean activities.
That stance appealed to Joella Werlin, a Portland personal historian and World Affairs Council member who attended Thursday's event.
"What an extraordinary experience in a democracy," Werlin said, "that the military is actually asking for public input." Richard Read: 503-294-5135; richread@aol.com. %%endby%%
©2008 The Oregonian
Continental Shelf Confusion Over Detritus Of The Deep
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120363436202384279.html
Board of Scientists Is Swamped By Claims For Rich Sea Floors
SCIENCE JOURNAL
By ROBERT LEE HOTZ
February 22, 2008; Page B1
Few people know of Alexandre Albuquerque. The 67-year-old retired Brazilian naval commander slips in and out of New York several times a year, unnoticed among dignitaries and tourists around the United Nations Plaza. There, in a windowless fourth-floor conference room, he works in secrecy to redraw the economic map of the oceans.
An expert in maritime boundaries, Mr. Albuquerque is brokering the largest peacetime expansion of national territories in modern memory, encompassing millions of square miles of potentially rich reserves of oil, gas and minerals on unclaimed coastal sea floor.
[DOES THE TERM 'BROKERING' IN THIS CONTEXT MEAN 'MEDIATING'??? OR, DOES IT MEAN 'NEGOTIATING'??? IF THE GOAL IS TRULY THE SECURING OF POLITICAL CONSENSUS, AS NOTED BELOW, DOES THE TERM 'BROKERING' REALLY INVOLVE BOTH??? IF SO, THEN WHAT IS THE ACTUAL ROLE THAT SCIENCE SERVES?? ]
As international legal deadlines come due next year, economic ambitions in up to 60 countries ride on his technical acumen -- and limited time.
Mr. Albuquerque is the new chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, a part-time group of 21 geoscientists from around the world who serve as sole referee for coastal sea-floor claims brought under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Already, the commission has more than it can handle. It expects as many as 50 new sea-floor claims to be filed by the May 2009 submission deadline for many treaty signatories.
(The U.S. hasn't signed the Law of the Sea convention.) Those claims may take decades to settle, with trillions of dollars in untapped mineral resources held in abeyance.
The commission has pressed in vain for more funding to review so much new data. The delays are "not fair to the coastal states," says Mr. Albuquerque.
"We are part-timers; we have other jobs," adds commissioner Peter Croker, an Irish petroleum expert and former chairman who helped to prepare Ireland's Law of the Sea claim. "Are we up to the task? Not really, to be honest."
[THE WORLD'S GOVERNMENTS ARE DEPENDING ON THE EXPERTISE OF PART-TIMERS WHO ARE OVER-WORKED AND UNDER-PAID TO SECURE THEIR SOVEREIGN CLAIMS TO THE OCEANS' BOTTOM??? IS THIS WHAT THE U.S. NAVY IS HANGING ITS ADMIRAL'S HAT ON??]
At Mr. Albuquerque's conference table, science substitutes for gunboat diplomacy. Rising to greet a recent visitor, Mr. Albuquerque -- 6 feet, 2 inches tall with curly white hair -- smiles discreetly. It is a measure of his delicate position that, in granting a rare interview as chairman, Mr. Albuquerque has to be circumspect about his work. He is bound by the treaty that employs him to keep commission proceedings and details of claims confidential.
Mr. Albuquerque is by training a hydrographer. For 20 years, he helped map Brazil's continental shelf and still works for its directorate of hydrography and navigation. Since 1991, he has devoted his professional life to the 600 words of Article 76 of the Law of the Sea, which in archaic and elusive terms defines the borders of the ocean floor and any allowable claim to it.
Policing this scientific frontier, Mr. Albuquerque and his colleagues parse the technical nuances of sea slopes and sediments in the voluminous data submitted by countries seeking, or challenging, authority over bands of ocean floor up to 150 miles beyond the existing 200-mile limit.
CLAIMING THE DEEP
It's been called the last drawing of the boundaries on our planet and it is up to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf3 to ensure that national claims to coastal sea-floor territories are scientifically sound, under the terms of Article 764 of the 1982 UN Convention of the Law of The Sea.
GNS Science5, a New Zealand government-owned research organization, offers a primer6 on Article 76 and its formal definitions of land mass, continental shelf, and deep ocean floor.
New Zealand's Continental Shelf Project Team7 wrote a booklet8 on the challenges they encountered in applying Article 76 to the real-world submarine morphology and geology of the Southwest Pacific.
Last October, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing9 on the Law of The Sea, which the U.S. has not signed. The staff of U.S. Sen. Richard G. Lugar, the committee's ranking Republican, assembled a FAQ10 on the U.S. and the UN convention.
In the meantime, an extensive sea-floor mapping effort has been underway at The University of New Hampshire's Law of The Sea Mapping Project11. Since 2003, researchers have been collecting multi-beam bathymetry and acoustic backscatter data that can be used to support claims by the U.S. and other countries to the extended continental shelf in the Pacific, the Arctic and the Atlantic.
What is at stake? "Money. Money, of course," Mr. Albuquerque says. Contested areas of the Arctic, for example, may contain 25% of the world's oil and gas. "The commission is important to allow countries to make agreements among themselves in a peaceful way, instead of struggling for resources."
Countries must justify any expansion of their underwater territory with sonar surveys, seismic readings, gravity maps, depth charts and geomagnetic tracings. All must pass muster with Mr. Albuquerque and his board.
The commission doesn't have the authority to settle any maritime disputes between countries. Instead, it works toward consensus on the scientific details of each sea-floor claim. "The commission is not entitled to tell the coastal states what to do and how to do it. Our work is to verify, check, examine," Mr. Albuquerque says. "Of course, we have doubts, and then we have questions. We cannot say we accept or reject. We examine the submission and make recommendations."
[IF THE COMMISSION DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SETTLE DISPUTES AND IS UNABLE TO ENFORCE ITS DETERMINATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS, THEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE SUBMITTING COUNTRY DISAGREES?? WHEN OTHER COUNTRIES DISAGREE?? COUNTRIES ARE NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS. THEN WHAT?? MORE APPEALS??]
Once a coastal country accepts the commission's recommendations, however, the maritime borders are "final and binding," by the terms of the 1982 convention. There are NO provisions for appeal, and the jurisdiction of any international court has not been tested.
The 11-year-old commission has been working on the nine claims submitted since it began accepting cases in 2001. They have yet to finalize most rulings, requesting more precise data.
[NONE OF WHICH HAVE COME TO RESOLUTION - A VERY EFFICIENT PROCESS!]
It's expensive to open a case. New Zealand reportedly budgeted $40 million to prepare its submission. New Zealand and Australia each are said to seek half a million square miles or more of sea floor. Russia wants the North Pole. It also seeks portions of the surrounding Arctic sea floor; so do Canada, Denmark and Norway. A hard copy of data from the Russian Federation could fill the conference room from floor to ceiling.
No one outside the proceedings knows all the technical details of the territory at stake; the commission makes public only a summary of each submission.
Should it ratify the treaty, the U.S. is poised to claim areas in the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic that encompass an area the size of California, with resources valued at an estimated $1.3 trillion. The Bush administration sought Senate approval of the treaty this year but that now appears unlikely, a senior U.S. State Department official said. Opponents fear U.N. interference in U.S. sovereign affairs.
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php? t=1491
(2) http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php? t=1491
(3) http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm
(4) http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part6.htm
(5) http://www.gns.cri.nz/
(6) http://www.unclosnz.org.nz/prolongation.html
(7) http://www.linz.govt.nz/docs/hydrography/currentprojects/continentalshelf/newsletter-apr06.pdf
(8) http://www.unclosnz.org.nz/booklet.html
(9) http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2007/hrg071004a.html
(10) http://lugar.senate.gov/sfrc/questions.html
(11) http://ccom.unh.edu/index.php? page=image_gallery/photos.php&p=26273134353946475152799495&page=law_of_the_sea.php (12) mailto:sciencejournal@wsj.com
(13) http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php? t=1491
Board of Scientists Is Swamped By Claims For Rich Sea Floors
SCIENCE JOURNAL
By ROBERT LEE HOTZ
February 22, 2008; Page B1
Few people know of Alexandre Albuquerque. The 67-year-old retired Brazilian naval commander slips in and out of New York several times a year, unnoticed among dignitaries and tourists around the United Nations Plaza. There, in a windowless fourth-floor conference room, he works in secrecy to redraw the economic map of the oceans.
An expert in maritime boundaries, Mr. Albuquerque is brokering the largest peacetime expansion of national territories in modern memory, encompassing millions of square miles of potentially rich reserves of oil, gas and minerals on unclaimed coastal sea floor.
[DOES THE TERM 'BROKERING' IN THIS CONTEXT MEAN 'MEDIATING'??? OR, DOES IT MEAN 'NEGOTIATING'??? IF THE GOAL IS TRULY THE SECURING OF POLITICAL CONSENSUS, AS NOTED BELOW, DOES THE TERM 'BROKERING' REALLY INVOLVE BOTH??? IF SO, THEN WHAT IS THE ACTUAL ROLE THAT SCIENCE SERVES?? ]
As international legal deadlines come due next year, economic ambitions in up to 60 countries ride on his technical acumen -- and limited time.
Mr. Albuquerque is the new chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, a part-time group of 21 geoscientists from around the world who serve as sole referee for coastal sea-floor claims brought under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Already, the commission has more than it can handle. It expects as many as 50 new sea-floor claims to be filed by the May 2009 submission deadline for many treaty signatories.
(The U.S. hasn't signed the Law of the Sea convention.) Those claims may take decades to settle, with trillions of dollars in untapped mineral resources held in abeyance.
The commission has pressed in vain for more funding to review so much new data. The delays are "not fair to the coastal states," says Mr. Albuquerque.
"We are part-timers; we have other jobs," adds commissioner Peter Croker, an Irish petroleum expert and former chairman who helped to prepare Ireland's Law of the Sea claim. "Are we up to the task? Not really, to be honest."
[THE WORLD'S GOVERNMENTS ARE DEPENDING ON THE EXPERTISE OF PART-TIMERS WHO ARE OVER-WORKED AND UNDER-PAID TO SECURE THEIR SOVEREIGN CLAIMS TO THE OCEANS' BOTTOM??? IS THIS WHAT THE U.S. NAVY IS HANGING ITS ADMIRAL'S HAT ON??]
At Mr. Albuquerque's conference table, science substitutes for gunboat diplomacy. Rising to greet a recent visitor, Mr. Albuquerque -- 6 feet, 2 inches tall with curly white hair -- smiles discreetly. It is a measure of his delicate position that, in granting a rare interview as chairman, Mr. Albuquerque has to be circumspect about his work. He is bound by the treaty that employs him to keep commission proceedings and details of claims confidential.
Mr. Albuquerque is by training a hydrographer. For 20 years, he helped map Brazil's continental shelf and still works for its directorate of hydrography and navigation. Since 1991, he has devoted his professional life to the 600 words of Article 76 of the Law of the Sea, which in archaic and elusive terms defines the borders of the ocean floor and any allowable claim to it.
Policing this scientific frontier, Mr. Albuquerque and his colleagues parse the technical nuances of sea slopes and sediments in the voluminous data submitted by countries seeking, or challenging, authority over bands of ocean floor up to 150 miles beyond the existing 200-mile limit.
CLAIMING THE DEEP
It's been called the last drawing of the boundaries on our planet and it is up to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf3 to ensure that national claims to coastal sea-floor territories are scientifically sound, under the terms of Article 764 of the 1982 UN Convention of the Law of The Sea.
GNS Science5, a New Zealand government-owned research organization, offers a primer6 on Article 76 and its formal definitions of land mass, continental shelf, and deep ocean floor.
New Zealand's Continental Shelf Project Team7 wrote a booklet8 on the challenges they encountered in applying Article 76 to the real-world submarine morphology and geology of the Southwest Pacific.
Last October, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing9 on the Law of The Sea, which the U.S. has not signed. The staff of U.S. Sen. Richard G. Lugar, the committee's ranking Republican, assembled a FAQ10 on the U.S. and the UN convention.
In the meantime, an extensive sea-floor mapping effort has been underway at The University of New Hampshire's Law of The Sea Mapping Project11. Since 2003, researchers have been collecting multi-beam bathymetry and acoustic backscatter data that can be used to support claims by the U.S. and other countries to the extended continental shelf in the Pacific, the Arctic and the Atlantic.
What is at stake? "Money. Money, of course," Mr. Albuquerque says. Contested areas of the Arctic, for example, may contain 25% of the world's oil and gas. "The commission is important to allow countries to make agreements among themselves in a peaceful way, instead of struggling for resources."
Countries must justify any expansion of their underwater territory with sonar surveys, seismic readings, gravity maps, depth charts and geomagnetic tracings. All must pass muster with Mr. Albuquerque and his board.
The commission doesn't have the authority to settle any maritime disputes between countries. Instead, it works toward consensus on the scientific details of each sea-floor claim. "The commission is not entitled to tell the coastal states what to do and how to do it. Our work is to verify, check, examine," Mr. Albuquerque says. "Of course, we have doubts, and then we have questions. We cannot say we accept or reject. We examine the submission and make recommendations."
[IF THE COMMISSION DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SETTLE DISPUTES AND IS UNABLE TO ENFORCE ITS DETERMINATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS, THEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE SUBMITTING COUNTRY DISAGREES?? WHEN OTHER COUNTRIES DISAGREE?? COUNTRIES ARE NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS. THEN WHAT?? MORE APPEALS??]
Once a coastal country accepts the commission's recommendations, however, the maritime borders are "final and binding," by the terms of the 1982 convention. There are NO provisions for appeal, and the jurisdiction of any international court has not been tested.
The 11-year-old commission has been working on the nine claims submitted since it began accepting cases in 2001. They have yet to finalize most rulings, requesting more precise data.
[NONE OF WHICH HAVE COME TO RESOLUTION - A VERY EFFICIENT PROCESS!]
It's expensive to open a case. New Zealand reportedly budgeted $40 million to prepare its submission. New Zealand and Australia each are said to seek half a million square miles or more of sea floor. Russia wants the North Pole. It also seeks portions of the surrounding Arctic sea floor; so do Canada, Denmark and Norway. A hard copy of data from the Russian Federation could fill the conference room from floor to ceiling.
No one outside the proceedings knows all the technical details of the territory at stake; the commission makes public only a summary of each submission.
Should it ratify the treaty, the U.S. is poised to claim areas in the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic that encompass an area the size of California, with resources valued at an estimated $1.3 trillion. The Bush administration sought Senate approval of the treaty this year but that now appears unlikely, a senior U.S. State Department official said. Opponents fear U.N. interference in U.S. sovereign affairs.
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php? t=1491
(2) http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php? t=1491
(3) http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm
(4) http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part6.htm
(5) http://www.gns.cri.nz/
(6) http://www.unclosnz.org.nz/prolongation.html
(7) http://www.linz.govt.nz/docs/hydrography/currentprojects/continentalshelf/newsletter-apr06.pdf
(8) http://www.unclosnz.org.nz/booklet.html
(9) http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2007/hrg071004a.html
(10) http://lugar.senate.gov/sfrc/questions.html
(11) http://ccom.unh.edu/index.php? page=image_gallery/photos.php&p=26273134353946475152799495&page=law_of_the_sea.php (12) mailto:sciencejournal@wsj.com
(13) http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php? t=1491
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
